May 16, 2017

Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations....

I'd like to know more about the basis for saying "An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations." I'm guessing that's a reference to the admissibility of the evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule (803(6)). The weight to be given the evidence depends on all of the circumstances. By the way, it's double hearsay, since we're asked not only to believe what Comey wrote but the unnamed individuals who told the NYT about the memo. The NYT has not seen a copy of the memo.

But let's assume the memo exists and says what you read quoted in the post title. How bad is it to say Flynn is a "good guy" and to express "hope" about the outcome? The headline has a pretty aggressive paraphrase of the quote. It reads: "Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation."

The asking is at most only implicit in what is a declarative statement: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go." That's just Trump revealing what he hopes for. There's no question at all, let alone any pressure or threat. And "see your way clear" is a delicate phrase. That's not saying do it my way. Go your way. And if your path is clear and it gets you to the outcome I hope for, then I will get what I want, but I'm assuming you will go where you see it clear.

Here's the White House response to the memo:

“While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn. The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey."

Even if I saw a memo Comey is such a drama queen I don't know what I would believe. Unnamed sources are just Hillary fans with a fantasy of what they believe is fake but accurate. Maybe someone from Kinkos will fax Dan Rather the memo.

From The New York Times' history, we can infer that this is another baby hunt by the left-wing establishment. They have been looking for a narrative to deem Trump not viable and abort him since day -100. So far, they have only managed to discover witches, and the mob outside their window, as evidenced by progressive left-wing violence, is growing impatient.

General Flynn is a far better person than Comey or all of the leftists that conspired to bring him down.

It was right to fire him because he fucked up. On the other hand Susan Rice did far worse things, fucked up far more often, and lied frequently to the american people and was never fired. General Flynn was a far better person than her.

And oh yeah... Flynn is a far better person than Chuck the leftist pretending to be a lifelong republican. These people haven't cared about any of this stuff until it was useful in protecting the DC rice bowl.

I can't read this crap anymore. You leftists are just terrible people. There is zero good faith and no intellectual honesty. Your double standards are so obvious it is repulsive.

Talk about burying the lede! It would only make sense then that Comey has notes of the discussions he had with Loretta Lynch regarding Hillary Clinton's server and the meeting she had with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.

Where are those notes and what do they say? And if he doesn't have them, why not, and isn't that evidence of bias?

Good for you, Ann -- exactly what I was thinking when I read all the remarks ordering me to think that expressing a hope for an outcome was bad. I hope it doesn't rain, OMG I am telling the weather what to do.

An FBI memo usually fits within an exception to the hearsay rule, and the second level of hearsay ("Trump said X") could fall within the "statement against interest" or "statement of party opponent" exception.

But as Ann says, that might make it admissible in a courtroom, but it doesn't make it indisputable, not by a long shot.

And if it's true, how much do we really care? I'm sure if you think that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians to steal the election, well then all of this fits well within your giant conspiracy, and thus is of grave importance.

But if you're sane and realize how utterly implausible (and lacking in evidence, we can be pretty sure at this point) that is, then you have a guy --- Flynn --- who may have been untruthful in his account of a discussion he had with the Russkies; maybe because he remembered it incorrectly, maybe because he was embarrassed, that's the sort of thing where the executive, exercising the kind of discretion it exercises every day of the year, might "see its way" to declining to charge someone even if you think there may have been a violation of the law (whatever that might be in this instance).

Like it or not, everyone in the executive branch works for the President, who right now happens to be Donald J Trump. There could certainly be some circumstances, where there is evidence of a serious crime, and particularly if the President is trying to protect himself, where trying to control an investigation might be wildly inappropriate. But we have no evidence that this was such a case, and the fact that the President sees someone as a "good guy" who he hopes doesn't get sucked into a criminal case is not a crime. It sounds like an act of decency.

I listened to the news on NPR twenty minutes ago. They like to report NY Times or WaPo anti-Trump stories as simple facts, i.e. "The New York Times has reported that Trump urged Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, in what Democrats are calling a serious violation of the separation between the administration and the Justice Department."Every word is true, but it is not meant to inform, it is meant to persuade. It is not journalism, it is advocacy. I am disgusted and angered that my tax dollars pay for this crap.

“You can call these sources disloyal, traitors, or whatever you want. But please ask yourself a question — if the President, through inexperience and ignorance, is jeopardizing our national security and will not take advice or corrective action, what other means are available to get the President to listen and recognize the error of his ways?

“This is a real problem and I treat this story very seriously because I know just how credible, competent, and serious — as well as seriously pro-Trump, at least one of the sources is.”

“You can call these sources disloyal, traitors, or whatever you want. But please ask yourself a question — if the President, through inexperience and ignorance, is jeopardizing our national security and will not take advice or corrective action, what other means are available to get the President to listen and recognize the error of his ways?

You could, you know, give your name, so that people could evaluate whether or not you are credible. Weird idea, I know.

Even if true, how is this different from Obama asking the DoJ not to prosecute the Black Panthers? Remember, the left has, for years now, told us that the president has the authority to decide what does and does not get law enforcement resources (it was the excuse for why Obama could fire the IGs investigating him, refuse to enforce immigration law, etc., etc.)

Given the baseline the left has given us to work with... how is what Trump did wrong, using the same rules that existed under Obama?

Actually Inga said something useful. Subpoena, find out. Enough with this bullshit anonymous source innuendo. Enough with being asked to trust reporters no-one should ever trust, or White House spokesmen who can't vouch for what they say. Find out.

Blogger 3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...Comey was fired after Flynn subpoenas went out. But, that was completely unrelated.Ya see, DJT fired Comey cause he was mean to HRC last year. The WH told us so, so it must be true.5/16/17, 5:35 PM

"I expect that Trump is taking good care of the tapes, to assist in any subsequent law enforcement investigation."

-- He shouldn't. We know that you can take a hammer to evidence and not be punished. It is foolish for any politician NOT to be destroying evidence left and right, as there are no consequences. This is what Obama and Clinton's rules teach us, and I don't like them. You don't like them. But that's how Washington will play for at least 3.5 more years.

LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!

If there is Executive Privilege regarding the releasing of the tapes, how is it that Sen. Warner speaks of subpoenaing the tapes? Is he mistaken?

"Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he will “absolutely” subpoena recordings of conversations between President Trump and former FBI Director James Comey if they exist.

“Listen, I don’t have the foggiest whether there are tapes are not, but the fact that the president made allusions to that and then the White House would not confirm or deny, it is not anything we have seen in recent days,” Warner told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

Warner, who is leading the Senate’s investigation into Russia’s attempts to interfere in the United States presidential election along with Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), said that while another committee may need to subpoena the tapes, it is essential to make sure they don’t “mysteriously disappear.”

“I’ve asked, others have asked, to make sure the tapes are preserved, if they exist,” Warner said."

Blogger Inga said..."Subpoena the memo and the paper trail. Get any tapes that exist. Have Comey testify under oath. If this is true, Trump needs to be impeached post haste. This has gone on long enough."

What has gone on long enough is the "Russian investigation". When are we going to see what they've got? I mean anything at all to justify all the turmoil.

As Matthew notes, politics now takes place within the parameters set by Clinton's corruption and Obama's incompetence. By that standard you're going to have a very tough time getting anyone who isn't a rabid Lefty to care.

"Ya see, DJT fired Comey cause he was mean to HRC last year. The WH told us so, so it must be true."

-- When people say this, I know they have no idea how private sector firing works. The proximate cause was Comey lying to Congress. To make the firing stick, you show a history of incompetence/fireable offenses. Which is why Trump, essentially said, "I want him gone. How do I get rid of him?"

So that's how it works in the private sector. And, then after all the flim flam is presented as the official reason for the termination, does the CEO always come out and completely undercut the flim flam reason?

Correct that even if the memo reads as described there is still a jury question about who is telling the truth.

But given Trump's reputation for veracity and subsequent admission that he fired Comey with Russia on his mind a neutral jury could surely find that Trump's intention in firing Comey was to stop the investigation.

And that is saying a lot.

By the way would you care to explain your move from cruel neutrality to lawyer for the defense?

"But given Trump's reputation for veracity and subsequent admission that he fired Comey with Russia on his mind a neutral jury could surely find that Trump's intention in firing Comey was to stop the investigation."

-- Considering that the next in line was McCabe, a Clinton lackey who pocketed a cool half a million from her, how would a reasonable person expect that removing Comey would stop the investigation?

First Sentence: "President Trump asked the F.B.I director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation...."

Next Sentence and Money Quote: "'I hope you can let this go' the President told Mr. Comey according to the memo."

Wow. Didn't ask him to end the investigation, didn't ask him to shut down the investigation.

Glad I didn't stop reading, though, because then I would have missed the longer quote later in the article "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."

@Inga Senate Warner IS most likely mistaken, but he got some press time so that's all that matters.

I suspect that before Trump's terms are up there will be at least one whopper executive powers decision in the SC that confirms many of the powers delineated to the president in the Constitution and by Congress that are currently being questioned by the Dems and poorly decided in the courts. Those decisions will be salutary for whatever party holds the WH in the future - and for the general public.

The press was pretty quiet on a number of cases that limited the attempts to expand executive power during Obama's terms. It will probably be healthy to have some decisions go the other way to define, once again, just what powers the President has.

But, it is perfectly within the bounds set by Obama. If you have a problem with it, you should have joined me around six or seven years ago when I said, "You shouldn't fire IGs that want your administration to answer their questions and say they're too senile to serve" instead of laughing about how Republicans are doodie heads.

A list of all the incorrect reporting on Trump between Jan. 20 and Feb.17.: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-errors-in-the-trump-era-your-catalogue-of-the-medias-bias-fueled-failure-fest/article/2614432

"Trump's the boss - he hires and fires the FBI Director. "I hope you can let this go" - pretty hard to construe that as anything BUT pressure."

-- While I agree, that's not how all of Obama's pronouncements on investigations and intent were looked at for eight years. So, I see no reason that the country should change their opinion on it solely for partisan gain.

After all, the best way to change a rule is to enforce it. Rigorously.

"Former presidents famously did record goings-on in the White House, especially John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and, disastrously, Richard Nixon. It’s believed that no president since Nixon has taped in the White House, in order to avoid the problems Nixon faced—though, of course, it’s possible some did so secretly.

The first important fact about recordings is that if they did exist, post-Nixon, an administration would be required to preserve them as a public record, in accordance with the 1978 Presidential Records Act. The recordings would theoretically become subject to Freedom of Information requests five years after a president left office, though that can be staved off to as much as 12 years. The entire recordings wouldn’t necessarily become available, because there are carve-outs for personal information about the president’s life, as well as “political” activities. If recordings did exist, it would be a crime to destroy them.

But of course, having recordings five years (at the earliest) after Trump leaves office would do little to resolve the political controversy right now. However, the Watergate precedent indicates tapes (or even “tapes”) could be subpoenaed. Ordered to turn over tapes of the White House, Nixon asserted executive privilege. The D.C. District Court rejected that claim, and Nixon appealed to the Supreme Court.

He lost there, too. By an 8-0 margin—William Rehnquist, a former assistant attorney general, recused himself—the Court ruled that the White House had to comply with a subpoena in a criminal case:"

"I listened to the news on NPR twenty minutes ago. They like to report NY Times or WaPo anti-Trump stories as simple facts, i.e. "The New York Times has reported that Trump urged Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, in what Democrats are calling a serious violation of the separation between the administration and the Justice Department."

What pisses me off is McMasters, Powell, and Tillerson have ALL said the WaPo story is FALSE. And yet, the MSM lablels that as "White House Pushback". No its not "Pushback"- the only Americans in the room - besides Trump - are calling the Wapo story a lie.

The asking is at most only implicit in what is a declarative statement: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go." That's just Trump revealing what he hopes for. There's no question at all, let alone any pressure or threat.

You are absolutely correct: Trump failed to add the words "or I'll fire you," so I can't imagine what all the fuss is about.

"Within the court, there was never much doubt about the general outcome, as on July 9, the day following oral arguments, all eight justices indicated to each other that they would rule against the president.[5] However, the justices struggled to write an opinion that all eight could agree to, the major issue being how much of a constitutional standard for what executive privilege did mean, could be established. Burger's first draft was deemed problematic and insufficient, and multiple drafts ensued, with Associate Justice Potter Stewart becoming a de facto co-author of the final decision.[5]

The stakes were so high, in that the tapes most likely contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President and his men, that they wanted no dissent. All contributed in some way to the opinion and a final version was agreed to on July 23, the day before the decision was announced.[5] Chief Justice Burger delivered the decision from the bench and the very fact that he was doing so meant that knowledgable onlookers realized the decision must be unanimous.[5]

After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." It held that a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process, if that claim is based, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality. Nixon was ordered to deliver the subpoenaed materials to the District Court."

Inga said...If there is Executive Privilege regarding the releasing of the tapes, how is it that Sen. Warner speaks of subpoenaing the tapes? Is he mistaken?

"Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he will “absolutely” subpoena recordings of conversations between President Trump and former FBI Director James Comey if they exist.

Inga, and others:There is Nixon-era case law that strongly suggests that there IS an Executive Branch privilege, against Congress forcing the release of, or using a congressional subpoena to obtain, White House audio tapes.

But there is further case law that makes it clear that in the investigation of a crime, the Department of Justice (or a special prosecutor as nominated under the DoJ) CAN subpoena White House audio tapes.

For these reasons, keep a sharp eye out, for any DoJ investigation of a possible crime. Or the appointment of a special prosecutor. That is why that is going to be a big deal. And why it is so far off at this point.

A congressional investigation might not produce immediate results, but it could nail down things like whether any tapes exist.

Trump tapes WOULD of course be subject to federal record-keeping laws (there is a 1978 Presidential Records Act), and anyone destroying them may be guilty of a felony. But they are not subject to FOIA.

And by the way, for what it is worth, and as much of a Trump-hater as I am, I do not see any clear avenue as yet, for any prosecution, special prosecutor or DoJ subpoena of the White House. I know that will amaze some of you. I could be wrong; and things may change. I expect things will change.

Perhaps the NY Times or the WaPo could do a story on how Comey became the most reliably truthful person in America. So reliably truthful, in fact, that even people who claim to have heard him speak or read his memos are also considered reliably truthful. You simply can't tell a lie about the man.Quite a turnaround for him.

All this Trump/Comey/Russia stuff will go on through the summer silly season lighting fools the way to dusty death.

This story on Drudge displaced two other articles about North Korea and the apparent belief that it was behind the global computer hack, possibly by using teams of long-embedded cyber hacker spies in nations around the world.

A bit more consequential.

If the Nazis had placed saboteurs in 10 nations during the 1930s, and those saboteurs performed coordinated acts of destruction, saying blowing up bridges or cutting power lines or telephone wires (a bit like the internet), and they were discovered, the war might have gone differently.

I'm reading Manchester's biography of Churchill and am now at the part about Chamberlain's two trips to meet Hitler. What 'peace in our time' meant was that the great European powers had acquiesced to Hitler's imminent dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Churchill said to Chamberlain in Parliament.

The N. Koreans just launched a missile that came within 60 miles off the Russian coast. A few months ago it fired a barrage of four missiles at Japan, landing within 200 miles of the Japanese coast inside waters it considers Japanese territory.

Hypothetical: What would President Trump do if a North Korean missile landed in the Pacific Ocean 60 miles offshore from Pearl Harbor?

My guess is that Pres. Trump is well down the road towards on getting China's tacit permission to attack North Korea, and if an event like the above actually happened, we would wake up the next morning to find that the U.S. had launched an apocalyptic strike against North Korea.

All this Trump/Comey/Russia stuff will go on through the summer silly season lighting fools the way to dusty death.

"Trump's the boss - he hires and fires the FBI Director. "I hope you can let this go" - pretty hard to construe that as anything BUT pressure."

A. Not really. You might construe it as pressure. My guess is that Comey has seen significantly more pressure-filled pressure than that. But I can see it as a lament that a guy Trump likes got jammed up and he's hoping they don't bring down the house on him because he likes the guy. Not every statement by the boss is pressure. might be might not be.

B. Even accepting for the sake of argument that it can be construed as pressure, that's NOT what the Times reported. The Times reported that he asked Comey to 'end' the investigation; that he asked Comey to 'shut down' the investigation.

Honestly, if that's all they have, this is what I thought it was, another in the long line of innuendos by which the Media reveals its extreme bias and lack of credibility.

"Trump's the boss - he hires and fires the FBI Director. "I hope you can let this go" - pretty hard to construe that as anything BUT pressure."

A. Not really. You might construe it as pressure. My guess is that Comey has seen significantly more pressure-filled pressure than that. But I can see it as a lament that a guy Trump likes got jammed up and he's hoping they don't bring down the house on him because he likes the guy. Not every statement by the boss is pressure. might be might not be.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has invited former FBI Director James Comey to testify publicly at a Senate hearing, the South Carolina Republican said Tuesday.

Comey previously declined a request to testify on Tuesday in closed session before the Senate Intelligence Committee, but The New York Times reported Comey would be willing to testify in an open session.

“I’ve asked Comey to come before the Judiciary Committee to tell his side of the story," Graham told reporters. “I think it would be good for him if he did. It would be good for the country.”"

But o, Pence has lied lied lied. So not sure how long he'll stick around. But in general, he is preferable. I just want all traitors out. Give me a patriotic Republican any day of the week. It's not Dump. Never has been and never will be.

Yeah, like "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" How bad was that?

About as bad as receiving and disseminating classified State Department e-mails on a private unsecured server in direct contravention of Federal criminal statutes.

None of the usual suspects, not Life-long Chuck or faux/voltaire or Abby Someone blinked or even criticized Hillary for the service fiasco or Billy Jeff calling on the Attorney General on the tarmac in Arizona.

Jesus people, you have Trump giving highly classified information from Israel to the Russians because he has a big fucking mouth and was bragging. What is wrong with you people? Have you all succumbed to mass retardation?

The NY Times has an actual policy about the use of anonymous sources: https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/new-york-times-anoymous-sources-policy-public-editor/

Needless to say, the Times violates its own standards when it reports on Trump. This is, I believe, because the Times editors and reporters are driven by fear and hatred, and not by dedication to their craft.

I suggest reading the whole column, but here are a few quotes:

"The use of anonymous sources is sometimes crucial to our journalistic mission. But it also puts a strain on our most valuable and delicate asset: our trust with readers."

"The use of anonymous sources presents the greatest risk in our most consequential, exclusive stories. But the appearance of anonymous sources in routine government and political stories, as well as many other enterprise and feature stories, also tests our credibility with readers. They routinely cite anonymous sources as one of their greatest concerns about The Times’s journalism."

"Without a named source, readers may see The Times as vouching for the information unequivocally — or, worse, as carrying water for someone else’s agenda. As far as possible, we should explain the source’s motivation and how he or she knows the information."

"Jesus people, you have Trump giving highly classified information from Israel to the Russians because he has a big fucking mouth and was bragging. What is wrong with you people? Have you all succumbed to mass retardation?"

Look in the mirror, Inga. You are hysterical and jumping to conclusions. How much of what I've quoted is known to be true? None of it.

Quaestor said......None of the usual suspects, not Life-long Chuck or faux/voltaire or Abby Someone blinked or even criticized Hillary for the service fiasco or Billy Jeff calling on the Attorney General on the tarmac in Arizona.

Where do you step off, mischaracterizing me like that? I thought that episode on the tarmac in Arizona was bizarre, repulsive and worthy of legal investigation. Deplorable, to coin a phrase.

And my loathing of any prospect of a Hillary! presidency was so awful, I voted for Trump.

What makes you think you can write shit like that about me without consequence?

Static Ping said...This story is based upon a memo that the reporter has never seen and potentially may not exist, read over the phone by a third party who remains anonymous, reported by a known biased media source.

Seems legit.

Won't be long now; all the congressional leaders, from both parties, seem to be in agreement to request that the Comey memo(s) be produced, with Comey testifying.

Chuck wrote: And my loathing of any prospect of a Hillary! presidency was so awful, I voted for Trump.

A likely fib, just like the life-long Republican fib.

Like it or lump it, Chuckie. If you want to settle this in a manly fashion come and get me. I'll meet you anywhere along the I-95 corridor from Columbia to DC. Bring pepper spray or a gun. I'll use my fists.

"Like it or lump it, Chuckie. If you want to settle this in a manly fashion come and get me. I'll meet you anywhere along the I-95 corridor from Columbia to DC. Bring pepper spray or a gun. I'll use my fists."

LOL wtf does Althouse get these clowns? Does she truck them in from somewhere? Is this the real diehard Trumpelstiltskein?

"What makes you think you can write shit like that about me without consequence?"

Because you're a blustering Lifelong Republican, clumsy moby, and noted cyber-pugilist? Chuck has threatened people from all over these United States on the Internet and some of them will never recover from the brutal cyber-beatdowns he has administered.

I try not to do ad hominem, Chuck, but you're a punk if ever I saw one.

2 days in a row major newspapers write stories their facts can't back up. And its obvious, deliberate.

One day Trump will really do something wrong and one will care because liberals have taught us not to care.

5/16/17, 7:08 PM

"Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has stated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, the underlying story is true"

Do we even really know if the Flynn investigation is a criminal investigation or a counter-espionage investigation against Russia? Temember, the FBI has two functions.

Until we know of there even was or is a criminal investigation regarding Flynn, it would be pretty hard to argue "obstruction of justice", even if arguendo Trump's statement was unduly coercive, which is by no means certain.

If firing the Attorney General, for example, were to obstruct justice in a pending investigation, then the voters would be guilty of obstruction of justice if they didn't vote for the sitting president in the reelection.

The record should not be admissible in court unless Comey is unavailable to testify. That said, even then, there's some serious analysis that must be performed in this hearsay within hearsay statement. If assuming it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

"I'm gonna get right to the point it's come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?

Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know ... "

The morons need to defend their guy Trump. The smart guys need to tell you why he's no good. By doing this we raise the level of the discussion and you guys don't necessarily have to be morons anymore ("Any time you wanna handle this in a manly way, lifelong Republican").

Maybe you can be smart, too, and the comments actually become interesting. Get it?

It should be self-evident. The liberal utterance of impeachment is always, by definition, premature and completely unfounded. On the other hand, they're much more sober about uttering: "This is the last straw." Because that's a commitment, not simply a hyperbolic statement.

But since we're talking about liberals, "reasoning" as a means to a logical end doesn't apply. For that you must feel, say, in the manner of Whoppi Goldberg or Madam Pelosi. Better known as the Goo-pot method.

Meanwhile, here's the hit-list of Dem descriptives in order of importance:

You know, in Britain they used to hand out a thing called an "anti-social bevahiour order," or ASBO. This was replaced by the "criminal behaviour order (CRIMBO) in 2015.If you want to the details, and how an ASBO differs from a CRIMBO, Benzene can fill you in.

The clownship is superb. We're on a comments section having to do with whether or not the President of the United State committed an obstruction of justice and you nancies are all "Ooooo who is that? Is that Ritmo??? I think it is!"

Let me just sign your autograph books for you and you two girls can leave the rest of us to talk about politics. 'Kay?

(Actually just gonna put both of you losers on ignore now. Thanks for introducing yourselves as the non-entities you are though).

The clownship is superb. We're on a comments section having to do with whether or not the President of the United State committed an obstruction of justice and you nancies are all "Ooooo who is that? Is that Ritmo??? I think it is!"

"We're on a comments section having to do with whether or not the President of the United State committed an obstruction of justice . . ."I thought the thread was about the improper use of anonymous sources by the NY Times.

So... : a Paper is reporting someone saw something someone else wrote down about something someone else said to him about some other guy and what that second guy wrote - if what he wrote is true - and thats assuming the first guy isnt lying about what he saw either - in any case - those words used by the third guy can be taken to mean - by some - that something very very serious should be done (impeach).

I thought President Trump was stupid macho guy. Wouldnt a stupid macho guy just threaten outright? ie "Lay off the case, buddy, or i will burn you with my goldfinger gun!" Suddenly hes Mr Innuendo on the Phone?

I would laugh if the news had identified that someone saw a Comey memo-to-file that said " the President just threatened me with a Goldfinger Gun over the phone. ". I would laugh harder if at the bottom of that purported memo it was also reported to say, in Comeys handwriting to the clerk: file under "Threats / Goldfinger / 2017". I would buy that days edition for sure.

Brookzene said..."@FoxNews reporting on the air now that they can't get a Republican member on the air right now to defend Trump"

CNN said the same thing.

Maybe they could get some Althouse commenters to step up to the plate. Crazy April could explain how the Clintons killed Seth Rich, so Trump can do whatever he wants now. buwaya could give an erudite and complex explanation for how the deep state is not just responsible for Trump's problems but for Trump as well, so Trump can do whatever he wants now. Achilles could remind them what disgusting slime liberals are, wanton moralless scum unfit to walk the earth, so Trump can do whatever he wants now.